An observation, speaking as an individual (not as doc editor): As far as I can tell, the decision about whether or not the IETF is trusting ISOC as our partner in the IASA effort was settled by the apparent consensus that we should follow the "Scenario O" path. I'd respectfully suggest that, unless someone seriously proposes revisting that decision, it is a bit late to be deciding whether or not to trust ISOC. What we need to do now is spell out what it is that the IETF is trusting ISOC to do. Thus, my own personal opinion on the current discussion (as opposed to my confusion on what the IETF wants me and Bert as doc editors to put in the draft BCP) tends to side with the folks who suggest that: a) We don't need to nail down issues like separate bank accounts in the BCP; but b) We -do- need to specify both what we expect ISOC to do and what we expect ISOC -not- to do. There are functions we want ISOC to perform for us (fundraising, office support for the IAD, etc) and functions we don't want ISOC to perform (chosing contractors for IASA without IASA being involved, making unilateral decisions about the disposition of funds that the IETF considers to be its own, and so forth). Words in a BCP are not going to prevent a hypothetical ISOC-gone-amok from doing things that the IETF will think are wrong; in such a case, I expect that detail issues will have to be left to the folks on the ground, because we're never going to be able to cover all the possible ways that said hypothetical ISOC-gone-amok might go off the rails. Words in a BCP might, however, provide some kind of useful objective basis for figuring out whether ISOC has done and is doing what the IETF asked ISOC to do. I'll now go back to watching the discussion in progress, trying to figure out what y'all want me and Bert to put in the document. --Rob _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf